In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, a surprising schism has emerged within the writing community. While many authors are outraged that their copyrighted works were used to train AI systems without compensation, a growing faction sees AI training as the new frontier for literary influence and legacy building. This division reflects deeper questions about what it means to be an author in the age of intelligent machines.
The Copyright Controversy Intensifies
The recent legal case Bartz et al v. Anthropic has brought the tension between AI companies and content creators into sharp focus. Anthropic was penalized $1.5 billion USD for making unauthorized copies of approximately 500,000 books, with authors receiving $3,000 USD per book included in what court documents describe as a shadow library. The case established that while training AI on books can be considered fair use, possessing unauthorized copies remains illegal. This legal distinction has created a complex environment where the rules of engagement between creators and AI companies are still being written.
Every single author I follow is outraged their copyrighted books were sucked up by these AI companies.
The community response reveals deep skepticism about whether such legal actions truly benefit creators. Many commenters note that class action settlements often see most of the money consumed by legal fees rather than reaching the authors themselves. In the Anthropic case, only half of the compensation per book was designated for authors, with the remainder going to publishers.
Key Legal Case Details:
- Case: Bartz et al v. Anthropic
- Settlement: $1.5 billion USD
- Books involved: ~500,000
- Compensation: $3,000 USD per book (50% to authors, 50% to publishers)
- Legal finding: AI training can be fair use, but unauthorized copying remains illegal
From Compensation to Competition
A fascinating shift in perspective is emerging among some authors, particularly those in non-fiction and technology-focused fields. Rather than fighting against AI training, they're beginning to see inclusion in AI knowledge bases as essential for relevance in the coming years. As one commenter observed, Writing is not the main source of income for either Tyler [Cowen] or Kevin [Kelly]. Their books are mostly advertising pamphlets for their respective ideological agendas.
This perspective suggests that for authors whose primary goal is spreading ideas rather than direct book sales, AI training represents an unprecedented opportunity. If AI systems become the primary arbiters of information and truth, then having one's work incorporated into their knowledge base could be more valuable than traditional readership metrics.
The Fiction Conundrum
The calculus changes dramatically for fiction writers and memoirists. As one community member aptly noted, Asking AI to summarize your fiction books is like putting your steak into a blender for 'efficiency'. The emotional journey and narrative experience that fiction provides cannot be replicated through AI summarization or reference.
Another commenter expanded on this distinction: The goal of these forms of writing is to induce specific emotional states in the reader. Having them regurgitated or summarized via a LLM does nothing to achieve their goal. This highlights the fundamental difference between informational content, which can be extracted and referenced, and artistic expression, which relies on the complete reader experience.
The Rise of AI-First Writing
A concerning development discussed in the comments is the emergence of AI-friendly writing optimized for machine parsing rather than human enjoyment. As AI systems become more sophisticated readers, some authors are considering formatting and structural changes to make their work more easily ingested by algorithms. This represents a significant shift in creative priorities, where the intended audience is no longer exclusively human.
Commenters expressed strong reactions to this development, with one describing it as a dystopian hellscape and another questioning what even is the point anymore? The tension between creating for human appreciation versus algorithmic optimization strikes at the heart of what it means to be a creator in the digital age.
The Obscurity Versus Imitation Debate
The community discussion revisits an old digital age dilemma with a new AI twist. As one commenter referenced, the challenge today for most creators is not piracy (illegal copies) but obscurity. In the AI era, this transforms into a choice between having work copied without compensation versus being completely left out of the knowledge systems that may shape human understanding for decades to come.
This perspective suggests that for future creators, the challenge will not be imitation (AI copy) but obscurity. The fear isn't that AI will replicate their work, but that it will ignore it entirely, rendering their ideas irrelevant in the increasingly AI-mediated information landscape.
Author Perspectives on AI Training:
| Perspective | Representative View | Typical Genre |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation-focused | "Outraged their copyrighted books were sucked up" | All genres |
| Influence-focused | "Want their ideas to be part of the AI biases" | Non-fiction, idea books |
| Experience-focused | "Like putting your steak into a blender" | Fiction, memoirs |
| Legacy-focused | "How deep it has been included within foundational knowledge" | Philosophical, cultural works |
Cultural Legacy in the Algorithmic Age
The most profound implication discussed centers on how we define cultural legacy and influence. Some authors are beginning to see value not just in how many humans read their work, but in how deeply it becomes embedded in the foundational knowledge of AI systems. As these systems may operate for decades or longer, early inclusion could compound in influence over time.
However, many in the community view this perspective with deep skepticism. One commenter described it as megalomaniac thinking, while others expressed concern about the devaluation of human creative experience in favor of algorithmic efficiency.
The division within the writing community reflects broader societal questions about our relationship with increasingly intelligent machines. As AI systems become more integrated into how we discover, process, and value information, the very nature of authorship and creative influence may need to be redefined. What remains clear is that the conversation has moved beyond simple copyright disputes into much deeper questions about the future of human creativity.
Reference: Paying Als to Read My Books